JAGMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-12-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on December 04,1990

JAGMAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

M S HASAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA MAROTRAO PATHARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. S B P V CHALAPATHI RAO [LAWS(SC)-1994-10-81] [DISTINGUISHED]
RAJENDRA S O MAROTRAO PATHARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
Kanaka Devi VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(PAT)-1993-5-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- In this appeal the short question that arises for consideration is whether the sale of the land effected by the appellant on May 12, 1976 was covered by sub-clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)The admitted facts are:
An amendment to the Act was introduced with effect from June 8, 1973 lowering the ceiling on holdings under the Act. It was given retrospective effect from January 24, 1971. In the meanwhile, the appellant had sold 34 bighas from his holding for a consideration of Rs. 73,000/- on May 12, 1972 by a registered sale deed, and the possession of the land was also given to the vendee. It is only after the amendment of 1973, when a fresh notice was issued to show cause as to why the property sold should not be included in his landholding, that the dispute with regard to the inclusion or exclusion of the property in the total landholding of the appellant for the purposes of the Act arose. The Prescribed Authority held that the sale deed in question was executed to evade the provisions of the Act and, therefore, ignored the sale deed and included the land in the appellant's holding and calculated the surplus land . in his possession, accordingly.

(3.)In appeal, the District Judge confirmed the finding and dismissed the appellant's appeal. The High Court in writ petition treated the finding of the District Judge as a finding of fact and did not think it necessary to interfere with it. It is aggrieved by these orders that the present appeal is filed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.